Sant Singh Nalwa & ANR Vs. The
Financial Commissioner, Haryana & Ors [1981] INSC 79 (30 March 1981)
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
VARADARAJAN, A. (J) SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)
CITATION: 1981 AIR 1148 1981 SCR (3) 330 1981
SCC (2) 557 1981 SCALE (1)594
ACT:
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, S.
2(5) and Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules 1953-Annexure 'A'-
Classification of land according to quantity of yield and quality of
soil-Whether valid.
HEADNOTE:
The appellants who were displaced persons
were allotted land which was entered as sailab land in the revenue records and
they became the owners of these lands. After the coming into force of the
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, the Revenue Authorities proceeded to
determine the permissible area of the land of the appellants under section
2(3). They allowed 50 standard acres of land to each of the appellants and
declared the balance as surplus land.
The appellants claimed that the lands
allotted to them as displaced persons fell in a portion of District Karnal
which was sailab and adna sailab and according to the classification made under
the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953 they did not carry any
valuation. The Collector dismissed their application.
The Commissioner dismissed their appeals
holding that the Collector was right in treating the surplus area as an
unirrigated areas and valuing the same at nine annas per standard acre.
A single Judge accepting the contention of
the appellant in his writ petition set aside the orders of the Revenue Court.
The Financial Commissioner filed an appeal which was allowed by the Division
Bench and the writ petition was dismissed.
In the appeals to this Court it was contended
on behalf of the appellants that (1) whereas sub-section (5) of section 2 of
the Act directed the Government to frame Rules after considering the quantity
of the yield and quality of soil, in the Rules framed by the Government the
main guide- lines laid down by sub-section(5) were not followed, and the classification
made by the Rules under Annexure 'A' was arbitrary without determining the
quantity of the yield and quality of the soil, and (2) that even if the
classification made in Annexure 'A' was valid, the Revenue Courts as also the
High Courts committed an error of law in misconstruing the classification and
in arbitrarily placing the surplus area in the category of unirrigated land.
331 Dismissing the appeals,
HELD: 1(i) The view of the single Judge is
not in consonance with the scheme and spirit of the Rules framed under the Act
and is based on a wrong interpretation of the nature, extent and ambit of the
classification made in Annexure 'A'. The classification is in accordance with
provisions of sub-section (5) of section 2 of the Act and is, therefore,
constitutionally valid. [337 E-F, G] (ii) The Land Resettlement Manual prepared
in 1952 by Tarlok Singh shows that the classification has been made in a very
scientific manner after taking into consideration all the relevant factors. The
Punjab Settlement Manual (4th Edition) prepared by Sir James M. Douie though
possessing unimpeachable authenticity was made long ago and since then there
have been great changes resulting from various steps taken by the Government
for improving the nature and character of the land and the irrigation
facilities. Even so, the classification made by Sir James Douie has been
adhered to broadly and basically by Tarlok Singh in his Manual which forms the
pivotal foundation for the schedule containing Annexure 'A' framed under the
Rules. [335H-336 C] (iii) The classifications of land like barani, sailab, abi,
nehri, chahi etc. are clearly mentioned in the Punjab Settlement Manual. The
Rule Making Authority has not in any way either departed from the principles
mentioned in sub- section(5) of section 2 of the Act or violated the guidelines
contained therein, nor could it be said that the classification made under the
Rules has not been made according to the quantity of yield or the quality of
the soil. [336 C, D-E] (iv) If the dominant object of the act was to take over
the surplus area according to the formula contained in various provisions of
the Act particularly sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 2, there is no
material on the record to show that the Rules do not fulfil or carry out the
object contained in the Act. [336 G] Jagir Singh and Ors. v. The State of
Punjab and Ors., 44 (1965) Lahore Law Times 143, approved.
2.(i) There was no error in the
classification made by the revenue authorities. So far as Karnal District was
concerned, there was no sailab land at the time when the Rules were framed and
the classification was made. Even if the land in question could be treated as
sailab and equated with the land in Sonepat then the valuation would have been
at 12 annas which could be more deterimental to the interest of the appellants.
The Collector and the Commissioner have rightly treated the land as unirrigated
which is the lowest category and whose valuation is given as nine annas per
acre. [338C, B] (ii) The three categories given in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of
Rule 2 do not cover the land of the appellants which is sailab or adna sailab
and therefore, they cannot be given the benefit of any of these three
sub-clauses of the proviso. [339 A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
Nos. 490 and 2228 (N) of 1970.
Appeals by certificate from the Judgment and
order dated 9-10-1969 & 14-1-1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 553 of 1968 & 570 of 1969 respectively.
332 Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the
Appellants (In both the Appeals.) K C. Bhagat and R.N. Podar for the Respondent
(in both the Appeals) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J.
These two appeals by certificate are directed against judgments dated 9.10.69 and
14.1.1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeals Nos.
553 of 1968 and 570 of 1969 by which the contentions raised by the appellants
in the two appeals were rejected.
After the matter came up in this Court the
two appeals were consolidated as they arose out of almost the same subject-
matter and involved identical points. The facts which have given rise to these
appeals lie within a very narrow compass and may be briefly summarised thus.
The appellants were refugees from Pakistan
and Sant Singh Nalwa was allotted 63 standard acres and 8/1/4 units in village
Marghain and another area of 19 standard acres and 5 units in Garden Colony in
Jundla which were entered as sailab land in the revenue records. The other
appellant, Kartar Kaur, was allotted 96 acres, 3 bighas and 13 biswas in the
same district. These lands were given to the appellants as they were displaced
persons. After the appellants had become owners of the lands, the State of
Punjab passed the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act') which later applied to Haryana also, under which
every land owner whether a displaced person allottee or otherwise could not
retain any area of land which fell beyond the extend prescribed by sub- section
(3) of s. 2 of the Act.
After the coming into force of the Act the
revenue authorities proceeded to determine the permissible area of the land of
both the appellants so that the area which was found to be in excess may be
taken over by the State after paying the compensation as provided in the Act
and the Rules made thereunder, viz., The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules,
1953 (hereinafter called the 'Rules'). In order to determine the permissible
area the Act contains certain provisions by which the entire area held by a
land owner has to be converted into standard acres on the basis of a formula
contained in sub-section (5) of s. 2 of the Act which defines 'standard acre'
thus:
" 'Standard acre' means a measure of
area convertible into ordinary acres of any class of land according to the 333
prescribed scale with reference to the quantity of yield and quality of
soil." Similarly, the relevant portion of sub-section 5-a which defines
'Surplus Area' may be extracted thus:
" 'Surplus Area' means the area other
than the reserved area, and, where no area has been reserved, the area in
excess of the permissible area selected (under section 5-B or the area which is
deemed to be surplus area under sub section (1) of section 5C) (and includes
the area in excess of the permissible area selected under section 19-B) but it
will not include a tenant's permissible area;.. " So far as the appellant,
Sant Singh Nalwa, was concerned, the revenue authorities held that he was
entitled to retain 50 (fifty) standard acres being the permissible area and the
balance of 13 standard acres and odd units was declared as surplus. Similarly,
in the case of the other appellants, Kartar Kaur, she was allowed to retain 50
standard acres and about 15 standard acres of land was taken over being
surplus. In the instant appeals, there is no dispute that the formula by which
the extent of the land in possession of the appellants had been converted into
standard acres was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The only
point that was canvassed before the revenue authorities as also in the High
Court centered round the question of the nature of the land and the valuation
thereof for the purpose of assessing compensation. The appellants case was that
as the lands which had been declared surplus or for that matter the entire
lands/allotted to them as displaced persons fell in a portion of District
Karnal which was sailab and Adna sailab and therefore according to the
classification made under the Rules they did not carry any valuation.
Sant Singh Nalwa challenged before the
Collector the validity of declaration of the surplus area and contested the
valuation put by the Collector. The Collector dismissed the application by his
order dated 13.3.1963 and held that 13 standard acres and 6 units of the land
had to be declared surplus. Against this order, Sant Singh filed an appeal
before the Additional Commissioner, Ambala Division where the only point raised
by him was that the area was not correctly evaluated. His main grievance was that
the area in question was equated with Barani land and valuated at the rate of
unirrigated area as given in the valuation statement of the Karnal District
under Annexure 'A' of the Rules. The main contention of 334 the appellants
before the Commissioner as also before us was that as the surplus area does not
fall under any of the categories mentioned in Annexure 'A' it carried no
valuation at all. The Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal holding that
the collector was right in treating the surplus area as an unirrigated area and
valuing the same at 9 annas per standard acre.
Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ
petition before the High Court which was allowed by the Single Judge by his
order dated July 23, 1963. The Single Judge set aside the orders of revenue
courts and accepted the contention of the appellant. Against this order, the
Financial Commissioner filed an appeal under Letters Patent before a Division
Bench of the High Court which by its judgment dated 9.10.69 allowed the appeal
and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court.
Similarly, Kartar Kaur, the other appellant
also filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Ambala Division
regarding the surplus land and having failed there, filed a writ petition in
the High Court on 10.2.1965 which was ultimately dismissed on 10.10.69 and the
appeal under Letters Patent against the said order of the Single Judge was also
dismissed on 14.1.70.
Thus, the position is that both the
appellants failed to get any redress from the High Court which ultimately
confirmed the orders of the Revenue courts.
The learned counsel for the appellants raised
two contentions before us. In the first place, it was argued that the Revenue
courts as also the High Court were in error in holding that the surplus area
was rightly evaluated in as much as the classification made under the Rules was
ultra vires as being in direct disobedience to the mandate contained in
sub-section (5) of s. 2 of the Act. In other words, it was argued that whereas
sub-section (5) directed the Government to frame Rules after considering the
quantity of the yield and quality of soil, in the Rules framed by the
Government under its rule making power given to it by the Statute the main
guidelines laid down by sub-section (5) were not followed and the
classification made by the Rules under Annexure 'A' was arbitrary without
determining the quantity of the yield and the quality of the soil. We might
mention here that this contention appears to have found favour with the Single
Judge in the writ petition filed by the appellant, Sant Singh Nalwa but the
judgment of the Single Judge' 335 as already indicated, was reversed by the
Division Bench in the Letters Patent appeal.
Secondly, it was contended that even if the
classification made in Annexure 'A' was valid, the Revenue courts as also the
High Court committed an error of Law in misconstruing the classification and in
arbitrarily placing the surplus area in the category of unirrigated land.
Coming now to the first point raised by the
appellants regarding the constitutionality of the Rules framed under the Act,
after hearing the counsel for the parties we find no merit in this contention.
Sub-section (5) of section 2 of the Act merely requires that the Rule should classify
the land according to the quantity of the yield and quality of the soil. The
Rules have classified the land by preparing a schedule consisting of various
Annexures which divide the lands according to the quantity of yield and quality
of the soil into various categories. A perusal of the Annexures to the Rules
clearly shows that the valuation statement and the class of land has been
described not only as being applicable to one place or the other but in view of
the entire topography of every district or tehsil, it is manifest that in a
peculiar State like Punjab and Haryana diverse factors, namely, the situation
or position of the land, its nearness to the river, the irrigation facilities,
the ravages of flood, the fertility of the land and its produce and various
other similar circumstances have to be taken into consideration in determining
the nature and character of the land. As far back as 1952, a Land Resettlement
Manual was prepared by Tarlok Singh, which was relied upon by the judgment of
the Single Judge and at p. 287 the land has been classified in following
categories:
"Chahi and Abi Chahi Nehri Unirrigated
Nehri Non-Perennial or other Nehri or Nehri-Inundation" This
classification varies from District to District and Tarlok Singh has also given
the approximate value of the land. After going through the Land Resettlement
Manual we find that the classification has been made in a very scientific
manner after taking into consideration the relevant factors. Even Sir James M.
Douie in his Punjab Settlement Manual (4th Edition), which is undoubtedly a
work of 336 unimpeachable authenticity, as pointed out by the Single Judge, had
made a classification which is almost similar to the one made by Tarlok Singh.
It is, however, obvious that the Punjab Settlement Manual by Sir Douie was made
long ago and since then there have been great changes resulting from various
steps taken by the Government for improving the nature and character of the
land and the irrigation facilities. It is, therefore, not possible for us to
rely on the Manual prepared by Sir Douie as the Single Judge had done because
that would not be an objective assessment. Even so, the classification made by
Sir James Douie has been adhered to broadly and basically by Tarlok Singh in
his Manual which forms the pivotal foundation for the schedule containing
Annexure 'A' framed under the Rules. The classification of land like barani,
sailab, abi, nehri, chahi, etc., are clearly mentioned in para 259 of Sir
James's Punjab Settlement Manual which Sarkaria, J., as he then was, rightly
classed as the Bible of Land Revenue Settlement. The point, however, that has
to be considered in this case is whether the rule making authority has in any
way departed from the mandate given or the guidelines contained in the Act.
There does not appear to be any material to show that the Rule Making Authority
has in any way either departed from the principles mentioned in sub- section
(5) of s. 2 of the Act or violated the guidelines contained therein. The
appellants were not able to show that the classification made under the Rules
has not been made according to the quantity of the yield or the quality of the
soil. Neither any affidavit nor any document has been produced before the
courts below to prove this fact. In this state of the evidence the Single Judge
was not justified in striking down the Rules as being ultra vires.
Moreover, it is obvious that the Rules were
made under section 27 of the Act which authorises the Government to make rules
for carrying out the purposes of the Act. If the dominant object of the Act was
to take over the surplus area according to the formula contained in various
provisions of the Act particularly sub sections (3) and (5) of s.2, there is no
material on the record to show that the Rules do not fulfill or carry out the
object contained in the Act.
Moreover, in Jagir Singh and Ors. v. The
State of Punjab and Ors. a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court while
considering a similar contention rejected the argument that the Annexure framed
under the Rules was bad as it did not consider the nature 337 and quality of
the Soil. In this connection, the Division Bench observed thus:- "It is
thus clear that the formation of an assessment circle necessarily takes into
consideration the various factors mentioned by the learned author and those
include the nature of soil and its quality apart from various other factors
affecting the yield. The circumstance therefore, that in the Annexure the State
of Punjab has been split up into assessment circles, as determined at the time
of the Settlement, is highly significant, and leaves no doubt that Settlement,
is highly significant and leaves no doubt that the nature and the quality of
the soil inherent in the formation of an assessment circle have been taken into
consideration for valuing the land for purposes of its conversion into standard
acres. At the same time, the existing sources of irrigation have all been taken
into consideration. It is, in the circumstances, impossible to agree that the
Annexure in any manner violates the direction contained in the Punjab Security
of Land Tenures Act.
We are, in the circumstances, unable to agree
that the disputed rule and Annexure 'A' attached to the Rules are ultra vires
the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act." We find ourselves in complete
agreement with the observations made by the High Court and endorse the same.
With due respect, the view taken by Sarkaria
J., as he then was (the single Judge in the instant case) is not at all in
consonance with the scheme and spirit of the Rules framed under the Act and is
based on a wrong interpretation of the nature extent and ambit of the
classification made in annexure 'A'.
We therefore fully agree with the Division
Bench judgment of the High Court that the classification is in accordance with
the provisions of sub section (5) of s. 2 of the Act and is therefore,
constitutionally valid. The first contention put forward by the counsel for the
appellants is therefore overruled.
Coming now to the second contention that even
if the classification is correct, the revenue authorities were wrong in
treating the surplus land in dispute as unirrigated area. We find no substance
in this argument. The relevant Annexure which gives the surplus land in
District Karnal is to be found at page 308 of the compilation of Punjab &
Haryana Local Acts (vol VII) where while lands 338 classified as Chahi, Abi,
Nehri, Unirrigated and Nehri/Non- perennial are mentioned, there is no mention
of sailab or adna sailab lands. Whereas at page 306 in the same volume there is
no sailab land except in tehsil Sonepat. Thus, it appears that so far as Karnal
District is concerned there was no sailab land at the time when the Rules were
framed and the classification was made. Even if the land in question could be
treated as sailab and equated with the land in Sonepat then the valuation would
have been at 12 annas as shown at p. 306 of the aforesaid compilation, in which
case this would be more detrimental to the interests of the appellants. The
Collector and the Commissioner have therefore rightly treated the land as
unirrigated which is almost the lowest category and whose valuation is given as
9 annas per acre. We, therefore, find no error in the classification made by
the revenue authorities.
We are unable to agree with the counsel for
the appellants that as the land in question did not fall in any of the heads of
classification made in District Karnal they will carry no value at all because
this is directly opposed to the various schemes of the classification made
under the Rules. A subsidiary contention in this very argument was that the
land should have been valued in accordance with Rule 2, provisos (a) to (c),
which may be extracted thus:
"2. Conversion of ordinary acres into
standard acres. The Equivalent, in standard acres, of one ordinary acre of any
class of land in any assessment circle, shall be determined by dividing by 16,
the valuation shown in Annexure 'A' to these rules for such class of land in
the said assessment circle;
Provided that the valuation shall be- (a) in
the case of Banjar Qadim land, one-half of the value of the class previously
described in the records and in the absence of any specific class being stated,
one-half of the value of the lowest barani land.
(b) in the case of Banjar Jadid land,
seven-eighth of the value of the relevant class of land as previously entered
in the records, or in the absence of specified class in the records of the
lowest barani land; and (c) in the case of cultivated thur land subject to
waterlogging, one-eighth of the value of the class of land shown in the records
or in the absence of any class, of the lowest barani land." 339 The three
categories given in clauses (a), (b) and (c) as extracted above do not at all
cover the land of the appellants which is sailab or adna sailab and therefore
they cannot be given the benefit of any of these three sub- clauses of the
proviso. For these reasons, the second contention is overruled.
The result is that we find no merit in the
appeals which are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without any
order as to costs.
N.V.K. Appeals dismissed.
Back
